Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[The Beast]

Mitch McConnell is a despicable human being. First for Garland and now for his pre-emptive “we will vote this week” garbage. He’s a partisan sack of crap.

Unless Kavanaugh lied and the FBI found something, he will get confirmed. Hopefully voters boot out some GOP in the senate in 2020 and 2022 in case 2018 is already a lost cause.

[caulfield12]

Instead of expressing respect and sympathy for Ford and calmly suggesting that she was mistaken in thinking that he sexually assaulted her, he ranted and shrieked and tossed off accusations and lies that demonstrated, to my surprise, that he clearly does not belong on the Supreme Court of the United States. Even if he did not do what he is accused of, the way he presented himself was truly shocking, immature, irrational and uncontrolled.

No person with that degree of emotional instability belongs on the highest court in our land. Kavanaugh revealed himself to be untrustworthy in precisely the way justices of the Supreme Court must be trustworthy. They must be calm, thoughtful, open-minded, respectful and mature; Kavanaugh has made strikingly clear that he is none of these things. That, in itself, is a compelling reason not to confirm his nomination to serve on the Supreme Court.

Over the past half-century, I have had the privilege of getting to know, to varying degrees, most of the individuals who have served on the Supreme Court since 1968. None of them — none of them — would have behaved in the truly immature and reprehensible way Kavanaugh did before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is simply not fit to serve as a justice of the Supreme Court. If President Donald Trump, Senate Republicans and the Federalist Society care at all about the integrity of the Supreme Court as an institution, it is time for them to go back to the drawing board. They can do better, and they should.

Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi distinguished service professor of law at the University of Chicago.

[Jenksismyhero]

6 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Instead of expressing respect and sympathy for Ford and calmly suggesting that she was mistaken in thinking that he sexually assaulted her, he ranted and shrieked and tossed off accusations and lies that demonstrated, to my surprise, that he clearly does not belong on the Supreme Court of the United States. Even if he did not do what he is accused of, the way he presented himself was truly shocking, immature, irrational and uncontrolled.

No person with that degree of emotional instability belongs on the highest court in our land. Kavanaugh revealed himself to be untrustworthy in precisely the way justices of the Supreme Court must be trustworthy. They must be calm, thoughtful, open-minded, respectful and mature; Kavanaugh has made strikingly clear that he is none of these things. That, in itself, is a compelling reason not to confirm his nomination to serve on the Supreme Court.

Over the past half-century, I have had the privilege of getting to know, to varying degrees, most of the individuals who have served on the Supreme Court since 1968. None of them — none of them — would have behaved in the truly immature and reprehensible way Kavanaugh did before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is simply not fit to serve as a justice of the Supreme Court. If President Donald Trump, Senate Republicans and the Federalist Society care at all about the integrity of the Supreme Court as an institution, it is time for them to go back to the drawing board. They can do better, and they should.

Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi distinguished service professor of law at the University of Chicago.

While Kavanaugh's performance was embarrassing, go into just about any courtroom in America and defy a judge's standing order. You know what you get? The same sort of ridiculous, out of control, immature, irrational, and often times angry person you saw from Kavanaugh during his hearing last week. Judges aren't emotionless monsters. They're human. That doesn't affect their ability to run their courtroom and apply the law to the facts. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Jenksismyhero

[Dick Allen]

7 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

While Kavanaugh's performance was embarrassing, go into just about any courtroom in America and defy a judge's standing order. You know what you get? The same sort of ridiculous, out of control, immature, irrational, and often times angry person you saw from Kavanaugh during his hearing last week. Judges aren't emotionless monsters. They're human. That doesn't affect their ability to run their courtroom and apply the law to the facts. 

What would happen if I were in Kavanaugh's court room and acted like he did? Or a lawyer in his court room and talked back to him like he did? 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Jenksismyhero]

If you were testifying? Absolutely nothing unless you started to become hostile to an attorney or to a juror or something. 

[Soxbadger]

10 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

While Kavanaugh's performance was embarrassing, go into just about any courtroom in America and defy a judge's standing order. You know what you get? The same sort of ridiculous, out of control, immature, irrational, and often times angry person you saw from Kavanaugh during his hearing last week. Judges aren't emotionless monsters. They're human. That doesn't affect their ability to run their courtroom and apply the law to the facts. 

 

2 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

If you were testifying? Absolutely nothing unless you started to become hostile to an attorney or to a juror or something. 

Jenks,

We are talking about the Supreme Court, not any judge in America. The guy is already at the second highest tier of judges in the country (and from what I can tell no one is even suggesting that he be removed from that position), but I think we deserve a Supreme Court justice who isnt going to commit perjury.

That really isnt a high bar for Supreme Court Justice. 

[southsider2k5]

19 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

While Kavanaugh's performance was embarrassing, go into just about any courtroom in America and defy a judge's standing order. You know what you get? The same sort of ridiculous, out of control, immature, irrational, and often times angry person you saw from Kavanaugh during his hearing last week. Judges aren't emotionless monsters. They're human. That doesn't affect their ability to run their courtroom and apply the law to the facts. 

In Kavanaugh's case he showed me that he is absolutely going to look at everything through partisan lenses.  I have seen a lot of Supreme Court nominations hearings, and this is quite literally the first one where I have said that.

[Jenksismyhero]

I agree, I'm arguing against this "composure" argument. That has nothing to do with his qualifications/ability to be a SC justice.

[NorthSideSox72]

Someone explain to me why McConnell is out there saying there will be a vote this week. And I don't mean explain to me why he's a partisan jackass trying to ram thru a pick - I get that part.

The FBI investigation started late Friday. A week goes to this late Friday. Then it takes a little time to deliver the results - at least Saturday, more likely Monday or Tuesday. Which means McConnell is suggesting a vote before the investigation is complete. Which he knows, or should know, means that Flake, Murkowski and Collins will vote NO if they haven't read the results of the investigation yet. Which would mean the end of Kavanagh's nomination.

So does McConnell not want him in? Or is Mitch just senile and can't add days? Why would he set a suicide pact deadline?

 

[Jenksismyhero]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

In Kavanaugh's case he showed me that he is absolutely going to look at everything through partisan lenses.  I have seen a lot of Supreme Court nominations hearings, and this is quite literally the first one where I have said that.

Why? Because he called the whole thing a conspiracy against him? Clarence Thomas made the same accusation (without naming names).

[southsider2k5]

Just now, Jenksismyhero said:

Why? Because he called the whole thing a conspiracy against him? Clarence Thomas made the same accusation (without naming names).

The way they handled themselves couldn't be more different.

[wrathofhahn]

8 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Instead of expressing respect and sympathy for Ford and calmly suggesting that she was mistaken in thinking that he sexually assaulted her, he ranted and shrieked and tossed off accusations and lies that demonstrated, to my surprise, that he clearly does not belong on the Supreme Court of the United States. Even if he did not do what he is accused of, the way he presented himself was truly shocking, immature, irrational and uncontrolled.

No person with that degree of emotional instability belongs on the highest court in our land. Kavanaugh revealed himself to be untrustworthy in precisely the way justices of the Supreme Court must be trustworthy. They must be calm, thoughtful, open-minded, respectful and mature; Kavanaugh has made strikingly clear that he is none of these things. That, in itself, is a compelling reason not to confirm his nomination to serve on the Supreme Court.

Over the past half-century, I have had the privilege of getting to know, to varying degrees, most of the individuals who have served on the Supreme Court since 1968. None of them — none of them — would have behaved in the truly immature and reprehensible way Kavanaugh did before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is simply not fit to serve as a justice of the Supreme Court. If President Donald Trump, Senate Republicans and the Federalist Society care at all about the integrity of the Supreme Court as an institution, it is time for them to go back to the drawing board. They can do better, and they should.

Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi distinguished service professor of law at the University of Chicago.

So he is supposed to be calm cool and collected as his good name is smeared and his family is dragged through hell? Sorry the rest of us are not going to play that game and are we supposed to pretend the Democrats were not acting in a complete partisan manner? Calling the man evil. Showboating. Claiming themselves Spartacus. Telling men to sit down and shutup. Hell a bunch of them said they believed her before the hearing even began

We all saw what happened to Bork and what happened to Thomas. If you aren't going to stand up and defend yourself and your family forcibly against the partisan smearing we all saw take place don't expect anyone else to do so for you. He came out swinging and showed he wasn't going to act all demure as his good name and family was dragged through the mud. He is not the one who originally made it personal he was more then willing to discuss the law in a  thoughtful well reasoned matter we saw 36 hours of that via questioning you go after his reputation label him gang rapist then go after his family all bets are off. Infact if he didn't react in that way he wouldn't be  of a man at all and the democrat party does not get to hold a monopoly on righteous anger funny noone in the media attacked the democrats senators temperament as gillibrand and Hirono were completely hysterical speaking to the media yelling at times in defense of a woman they've never met about an event they've yet to hear testimony on from either side . Yet there sat Hirno a couple of days later asking questions like she was somehow interested in the truth and didn't have her mind made up. Brett was right to call them out on their farce of a show trial and it isn't exactly a secret how these allegations came about a democrat leaked them likely Diane Feinstein

Edited October 2, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[southsider2k5]

5 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

So he is supposed to be calm cool and collected as his good name is smeared and his family is dragged through hell? Sorry the rest of us are not going to play that game and are we supposed to pretend the Democrats were not acting in a complete partisan manner? Calling the man evil. Showboating. Claiming themselves Spartacus. Telling men to sit down and shutup. Hell a bunch of them said they believed her before the hearing even began

We all saw what happened to Bork and what happened to Thomas. If you aren't going to stand up and defend yourself and your family forcibly against the partisan smearing we all saw take place don't expect anyone else to do so for you. He came out swinging and showed he wasn't going to act all demure as his good name and family was dragged through the mud. He is not the one who originally made it personal he was more then willing to discuss the law in a  thoughtful well reasoned matter we saw 36 hours of that via questioning you go after his reputation label him gang rapist then go after his family all bets are off. Infact if he didn't react in that way he wouldn't be  of a man at all and the democrat party does not get to hold a monopoly on righteous anger funny noone in the media attacked the democrats senators temperament as gillibrand and Hirono were completely hysterical speaking to the media yelling at times in defense of a woman they've never met about an event they've yet to hear testimony on from either side . Yet there sat Hirno a couple of days later asking questions like she was somehow interested in the truth and didn't have her mind made up. Brett was right to call them out on their farce of a show trial and it isn't exactly a secret how these allegations came about a democrat leaked them likely Diane Feinstein

Bullshit.

If the Democrats were so mighty and powerful as to be able to manufacture this stuff out of no where, how come they didn't do this to Gorsuch?  This is a party that couldn't get its own nominee straight, yet we are supposed to believe they were able to coordinate this compaign?

Pick a lane.

[Jenksismyhero]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

Bullshit.

If the Democrats were so mighty and powerful as to be able to manufacture this stuff out of no where, how come they didn't do this to Gorsuch?  This is a party that couldn't get its own nominee straight, yet we are supposed to believe they were able to coordinate this compaign?

Pick a lane.

I think both can be true. I think her allegations, true or not, are credible, but the Dems clearly played this all purposefully and methodically because they knew it was a win-win situation; either they derail the nomination and hope that the mid-terms get them the majority and then never confirm a justice until the next election, OR, they make the old white guys on the committee look like they hate women.

Once Feinstein and the House rep heard about this they could have immediately taken it to the committee for a confidential investigation. Instead, they waited. And despite Feinstein's denial, this story was leaked ON PURPOSE. Who do you think wanted this out there the most? It wasn't a coincidence. It was all coordinated to maximize the chance that the Repubs would be forced to vote no.

[Kyyle23]

5 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

I think both can be true. I think her allegations, true or not, are credible, but the Dems clearly played this all purposefully and methodically because they knew it was a win-win situation; either they derail the nomination and hope that the mid-terms get them the majority and then never confirm a justice until the next election, OR, they make the old white guys on the committee look like they hate women.

Once Feinstein and the House rep heard about this they could have immediately taken it to the committee for a confidential investigation. Instead, they waited. And despite Feinstein's denial, this story was leaked ON PURPOSE. Who do you think wanted this out there the most? It wasn't a coincidence. It was all coordinated to maximize the chance that the Repubs would be forced to vote no.

Nobody has to make them do that, they do it just fine by themselves

[Quin]

12 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

I think both can be true. I think her allegations, true or not, are credible, but the Dems clearly played this all purposefully and methodically because they knew it was a win-win situation; either they derail the nomination and hope that the mid-terms get them the majority and then never confirm a justice until the next election, OR, they make the old white guys on the committee look like they hate women.

Once Feinstein and the House rep heard about this they could have immediately taken it to the committee for a confidential investigation. Instead, they waited. And despite Feinstein's denial, this story was leaked ON PURPOSE. Who do you think wanted this out there the most? It wasn't a coincidence. It was all coordinated to maximize the chance that the Repubs would be forced to vote no.

The reporter who first got it stated it didn't come from her staff

[Jenksismyhero]

A lot of the times, yes, they absolutely bring it on themselves. But I hate this trend that any woman making an allegation has to be believed and it's the accused that has to prove his innocence and if you don't 100% believe the woman then that means you hate all women, you're trying to silence women, etc. etc.

While I believe Ford to be credible, I don't think it's wholly unreasonable if someone doesn't given some of the inconsistencies/lack of corroborating witnesses/missing details. People can have differing opinions about things and it doesn't make them a bad person who hates women (shock!). 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

6 minutes ago, Quinarvy said:

The reporter who first got it stated it didn't come from her staff

Then who gave it to her? Three people/offices had possession of that letter - the House Rep, Feinstein's office and Ford and her attorneys; Ford testified that she never gave anyone permission to release the letter to the press. So either Feinstein's office or the House Rep's office leaked it.

edit:  maybe i'm confusing the timeline. I'm assuming she had lawyered up and gave the letter to the lawyers before it was leaked. Maybe that wasn't the case. Either way, there are only a few people that had that letter.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Jenksismyhero

[Quin]

1 minute ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Then who gave it to her? Three people/offices had possession of that letter - the House Rep, Feinstein's office and Ford and her attorneys; Ford testified that she never gave anyone permission to release the letter to the press. So either Feinstein's office or the House Rep's office leaked it.

Probably the Rep or her staff.

Also, its existence could have been leaked, but not he actual letter itself.

 

[Dick Allen]

16 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

A lot of the times, yes, they absolutely bring it on themselves. But I hate this trend that any woman making an allegation has to be believed and it's the accused that has to prove his innocence and if you don't 100% believe the woman then that means you hate all women, you're trying to silence women, etc. etc.

While I believe Ford to be credible, I don't think it's wholly unreasonable if someone doesn't given some of the inconsistencies/lack of corroborating witnesses/missing details. People can have differing opinions about things and it doesn't make them a bad person who hates women (shock!). 

 

 

Everyone knows, including you, that Kavanaugh lied last Thursday about things other than this alleged incident. There really is no argument he did not. Granted, some may be little white lies about things, but they are still lies. So, if a guy is lying about the small stuff, and his accuser concerning the big stuff comes off as credible from people on both sides, doesn't that usually mean bad things for the accused?  Wouldn't it, shouldn't it, leave at least a shred of doubt about his innocence? He isn't going to jail, this isn't innocent until proven guilty. This is putting a  guy on the Supreme Court. You would think republicans could find someone better who would have the same effect over the issues they want addressed. 

 

This whoever is the most shocking or whoever is the loudest  wins realty TV inspired world in which we now live is something I look forward to seeing shift back to a point where at least a little civility is appreciated by all.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Soxbadger]

10 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Then who gave it to her? Three people/offices had possession of that letter - the House Rep, Feinstein's office and Ford and her attorneys; Ford testified that she never gave anyone permission to release the letter to the press. So either Feinstein's office or the House Rep's office leaked it.

edit:  maybe i'm confusing the timeline. I'm assuming she had lawyered up and gave the letter to the lawyers before it was leaked. Maybe that wasn't the case. Either way, there are only a few people that had that letter.

I think what happened is that one of her friends called the Intercept and told the story. They then started investigating which lead to the the letter ultimately being turned over.

There were a few people who knew the story.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think they could but they don't have time and they risk losing the ability to stack the court for the foreseeable future if they wait. 

[southsider2k5]

37 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

I think both can be true. I think her allegations, true or not, are credible, but the Dems clearly played this all purposefully and methodically because they knew it was a win-win situation; either they derail the nomination and hope that the mid-terms get them the majority and then never confirm a justice until the next election, OR, they make the old white guys on the committee look like they hate women.

Once Feinstein and the House rep heard about this they could have immediately taken it to the committee for a confidential investigation. Instead, they waited. And despite Feinstein's denial, this story was leaked ON PURPOSE. Who do you think wanted this out there the most? It wasn't a coincidence. It was all coordinated to maximize the chance that the Repubs would be forced to vote no.

Again, if they have this ability to do this out of no where, why have they not weaponized this prior to now?  Gorsuch would have been a more obvious target after the Garland fiasco.

[Dick Allen]

2 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

I think they could but they don't have time and they risk losing the ability to stack the court for the foreseeable future if they wait. 

I saw an old interview with the organization head who actually gave Trump the short list. He had a lot of names on there. I think about 20. He was asked who his favorite was, he said you could throw a dart to decide, it didn't make much of a difference. Trump picked this guy because he doesn't think a POTUS should be indicted. Once this is settled, it will be back to Russia and Michael Cohen....Kavanaugh being a Bush guy is a huge negative to Trump. He picked the wrong guy. 

[Quin]

2 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

I think they could but they don't have time and they risk losing the ability to stack the court for the foreseeable future if they wait. 

After what they did to Garland, boo hoo.